tile_url_template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output is a tile URL template but lacks details on error conditions, limitations, or behavior when inputs are invalid. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and parameter examples without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially explains three parameters. It lacks coverage of required parameters and the role of assets, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning to 'expression', 'rescale', and 'colormap_name' by explaining their use in index layers. However, it does not explain the required parameters like 'catalog', 'collection_id', 'item_id', or the optional 'assets' parameter, leaving gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool generates an XYZ tile URL template for a STAC item, specifically for web maps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'render_map' by focusing on tile URL generation and providing usage examples for index layers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives specific usage guidance for index layers with expressions, rescale, and colormap, and notes catalog-specific support differences. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or indicate when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.